Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great! How nice to know that for no reason whatsoever and without a warrant, police can break down your door and enter your home. Chalk it up to another of numerous reason to re-elect OBAMA (NOT)!
Supreme Court: No warrant needed if police discern destruction of evidence - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110516/ts_csm/384310 - broken link)
I believe this is happening in Indiana right now yet there is nothing about it on the Indiana threads. You'd think it would be the utmost critical issue on everyone's mind!
You should read your own link before posting lies.
"In a surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that police can knock down the door to your home and enter if they hear noises that lead them to believe that evidence is being destroyed."
You should read your own link before posting lies.
"In a surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that police can knock down the door to your home and enter if they hear noises that lead them to believe that evidence is being destroyed."
You should read your own link before posting lies.
"In a surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that police can knock down the door to your home and enter if they hear noises that lead them to believe that evidence is being destroyed."
That is NOT NO REASON AT ALL as you claim.
So, you can have a powder room off of your front foyer (as I did at one time) and they walk up for a knock and talk, hear the toilet flush and the door crashes in. Yeah, it IS no reason at all.
You should read your own link before posting lies.
"In a surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that police can knock down the door to your home and enter if they hear noises that lead them to believe that evidence is being destroyed."
That is NOT NO REASON AT ALL as you claim.
How do they know that the noises are the result of evidence being destroyed? Are the noises different from rinsing out a dirty glass? Shoving a newspaper in a wastebasket? Flushing a toilet that has yellow water instead of white water in it? This ruling gives the police a tremendous amount of discretion, perhaps enough to fall under the NO REASON AT ALL that emilybh is claiming.
Wrong! Liberal Judges are the ones that think the Constitution is "outdated" and that people are too stupid too irresponsible to run their own lives and need the government to run their lives.
That's just an absurd allegation. Not to mention, it was two conservative Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, citing in 2 recent rulings, who wrote:
". . . [our] constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. . .
In other words; the Constitution is, indeed, a living document, intended to be applied as appropriate for circumstances as they crop up over time. That's also what Liberals believe, and that is nothing like the loaded term "outdated".
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion on the case.
Alito was nominated by GW Bush and confirmed by a Republican majority senate in 2005. He is also described as a conservative with a libertarian streak.
So...don't vote for Obama in 2012 so he can't nominate more Supreme Court justices like Alito?
Anyone else seeing the logical disconnect here?
Me!
As for this particular ruling, it did little to make it "easier" for police to enter a home without a warrant. What it did was clarify what potentially criminal acts make up "exigent circumstances", that already allow police to enter a home without a warrant. They can already "break your door down" if they have reason to believe certain crimes are occurring on the other side. The court simply ruled that the reasonable belief that destruction of evidence was occurring, fell under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the law.
And this ruling didn't even address whether or not the police acted properly or not in the underlying case. It's now being sent back down to the lower courts to hear evidence that will determine if the police really did have a "reasonable belief" that evidence was being destroyed. If they can't prove that that's really why they barged into that particular door, then their actions are prohibited and the prosecution loses their case against the defendant.
In this case, they were pursuing someone else and didn't know whether he went into Door A or Door B. If the defense can show that police barnstormed the defendant's door looking for the guy they were pursuing, and not because they thought some different crime was occurring at the same time behind a different door, it gets kicked and even this SC ruling doesn't protect the actions of the police.
It would help if people understood these things before going off half-cocked on uninformed rants.
1. The actual issue before the court is 2 fold, first in the case of exigent circumstances involving the destruction of evidence can the police conduct a reasonable search w/o a warrent, and second is there a good faith requirement on the part of the police to not to use methods where the creation of exigent circumstances is reasonably foreseeable, or an objective test?
2. The answer court gives is Yes to part one and an objective test to part 2. I tend to agree with justice Ginsberg, that the Kentucky court was right and a good faith test should apply.
I think this will serve to encourage police act in bad faith to try to induce people to try to destroy evidence to justify otherwise unreasonable searches, just like NY v. Belton encouraged police to arrest motorists so the could make questionable vehicle searches.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 05-19-2011 at 02:04 PM..
That's just an absurd allegation. Not to mention, it was two conservative Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, citing in 2 recent rulings, who wrote:
". . . [our] constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. . .
In other words; the Constitution is, indeed, a living document, intended to be applied as appropriate for circumstances as they crop up over time. That's also what Liberals believe, and that is nothing like the loaded term "outdated". Me!
As for this particular ruling, it did little to make it "easier" for police to enter a home without a warrant. What it did was clarify what potentially criminal acts make up "exigent circumstances", that already allow police to enter a home without a warrant. They can already "break your door down" if they have reason to believe certain crimes are occurring on the other side. The court simply ruled that the reasonable belief that destruction of evidence was occurring, fell under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the law.
And this ruling didn't even address whether or not the police acted properly or not in the underlying case. It's now being sent back down to the lower courts to hear evidence that will determine if the police really did have a "reasonable belief" that evidence was being destroyed. If they can't prove that that's really why they barged into that particular door, then their actions are prohibited and the prosecution loses their case against the defendant.
In this case, they were pursuing someone else and didn't know whether he went into Door A or Door B. If the defense can show that police barnstormed the defendant's door looking for the guy they were pursuing, and not because they thought some different crime was occurring at the same time behind a different door, it gets kicked and even this SC ruling doesn't protect the actions of the police.
It would help if people understood these things before going off half-cocked on uninformed rants.
The problem with this ruling is that the majority opinion say that they have ruled to make the exigent circumstances rule more objective. But that's untrue. It makes it more subjective, because it puts the judgment more squarely in the hands of the police. "It sounded to me like evidence was being destroyed." "It sounded to me" is a wholly subjective evaluation, not objective in any way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, it IS no reason at all.
